archer9234 said:
bigtakilla said:
Pavolink said:
archer9234 said:
I think the more important issue is when Nintendo starts making the game. VS how long it takes. Great, the game takes 5 years. We know this process is a complicated matter. But they do have planning issues, when they make games. If this happened on TV shows. They be cancelled after one season.
A TV show is made several months to almost a year in advance, before airing. So when you saw that season 1 cliffhanger. 5 episodes where already being planned/written for season 2. To get stuff completed on time. Nintendo needs to start building Zelda games before the generation ends. So that when that zelda comes out during year 3 or 4. The next one is ready at the next generations year 2. Nintendo talking about first time making a HD zelda, is really sad. They basically admitted to no one, on their teams ,did HD tests for Zelda. Till the main build phase started.
No internal demos. No use of portions of Skyward Sword. To test how long a room would take to build in HD, than in SD. Nothing? That be like people in the movie/TV industry designing an outfit. Picking it. It's made for the actor. And they just start filming. When the outfits need to go in front of camera, for testing. To see if it works. Or feels right for the actor.
|
This. Prettu much this. They are innefficient.
LipeJJ said:
I thought MM had 5. But anyways, I know this, but if you stop to think about it... since Majora's the number went up, except for SS. It also became harder to develop new engines for more powerful systems. During the N64 era games would come after 2 years without big problems, everything was easier (I kinda miss those days).
|
During the N64 era they faced the worst problem: translate the franchise to 3D.
|
But their first 3D LoZ knocked it out of the park and is still the highest sold in the franchise as well as the highest overall rated game of all time. Just saying that certain problems will take different amounts of time to overcome. It almost seemed like Mario and LoZ almost went to 3D like it was second nature. Sonic's problem is how do you retain a fast game that incorperates 3D (they shouldn't have once they realized their games couldn't really do much beyond the Adventure titles and reverted back to 2D when they became a 3rd party dev). Making a game that is HD and retains a high frame rate I think would be tougher than just making 3D polygon games. Maybe Nintendo just makes it look easy.
|
it's only tough because there's this cycle of pushing graphics. Everytime you want to push graphics. The systems power is the problem. The better option is to not exceed the power of the console. The thing is. People want to see realistic. And not just see a PS3 game. You can have a game run at 1080p 60fps on all 3 consoles. But the graphic deatailing is what get sacraficed. Then you run into the problem of people not wanting to pay 5 or $600 for a system, that can use top of the line graphics. Without issue. So than companies try to push graphics, sacrafice everything else. Cycle repeats. People need to accept the limitations of the sytem. Or live with all the technical reductions. Since no one wants to cough up more money.
|
True enough, I agree with you in certain aspects. I don't think it has to look realistic per se, such as the fact that the new LoZ game doesn't look realistic at all. But the way the grass moved in the demo, and the way the horses main moved, ect had realistic motion to it and I think it was very eye catching for that reason.
